Climalteranti: Le variazioni climatiche durante l’ultimo milione di anni: mandanti, killer e alibi (seconda parte)

Grazie per il riferimento a Fig.2. Siamo sicuri che ritragga proprio “il passaggio di Nord Ovest libero dai ghiacci nell’agosto del 2007″?

Sul web ho trovato la foto ingrandita riguardo l’orso
http://ct5.pbase.com/t6/06/642906/4/69731346.rS3YVgSv.jpg

La pagina completa parla di “Artico e Passaggio a Nord Ovest”
http://www.pbase.com/spencer1959/arctic__northwest_passage&page=2

Ecco una foto del Passaggio, come da didascalia
http://www.pbase.com/spencer1959/image/69819192

Comunque dubito che il signor Wynn sarebbe contento dell’uso delle sue foto senza attribuzione, specie di quelle usate per la copertina di un libro che costa 77 dollaroni e dove il copyright e’ bello in grande a pagina 1

Su quella copertina c’e’ poi anche un titolo accanto all’orso…per favore non ditemi che avete “ritoccato” la fotografia

ps a quanto pare il viaggio di Wynn nell’Artico e’ del luglio 2006. Ecco la sua foto in un articolo del gennaio 2007
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/175673

Advertisement

BBC: Coughing up to curb climate change

To those claiming that benefits may as well outweigh costs, as per the original DEFRA estimates: can you please remind me of any initiative by any UK Government that has turned out to be cheaper than expected, and providing more benefits than originally claimed?

And the “£10,000 in 42 years” argument is disingenuous. Of course, we will have to pay the £10,000 asap. And of course, we will see any benefit only at the very end of the period.

After all, they will want to get as much as possible now (as long as they can), and then spend 42 years to devise ways to fudge with the results and proclaim victory

A Quantum Diaries Survivor: Latorre, please resign!

Perhaps Tommaso could explain that in Italian politics it is customary to declare oneself “anthropologically stranger” to one’s opponent, as if there were two or more, mutually-incompatible human subspecies inhabiting Italy.

In that political climate, “passing a suggestion to the other side” is akin to a shepherd deliberately helping the nearby wolves stay fit and numerous.

You can see it from the language used: “belligerent”, “dirty maneuvers”, “misconduct”…

In any case, the Latorre episode is just one of many in the ongoing war among different strains of Leftists, after heavy losses at the April 2008 Parliamentary Elections. Plenty of theatrics are in store for the future, for sure.

ps some readers may wonder why freemasonry would deserves a place between “septs” (I think Tommaso means “sects”) and “mafia”…another very Italian peculiarity!!!

Real Climate: Simple Question, Simple Answer… Not

I see that my point (#10) is more or less repeated by other commentators (eg #53 and #58).

Gavin: you reply to #53: “Why should anyone continue to discuss with you?”

If you really want to communicate, then you better find a way of communicating. If on the other hand you don’t want to communicate, there is little point in replying to comments, really.

In fact you remind me of those English-speaking tourists arriving back home in frustration, convinced that the locals they visited are brainless idiots, after having shouted, yelled, huffed and puffed to make themselves understood…by people that simply do not speak English.

If you or Mr Weart want to speak to engineers, or anybody else, then you both better speak in a way that engineers can understand. And if they don’t appear to have understood, you cannot simply jump to saying “why are you people so slow to understand?”…the only sensible option is to see where the miscommunication is (yes, it can be with you too), and to work to fix that.

I have provided a few suggestions already.

People do have various degrees of skepticism in the nature and dangers of anthropogenic global warming. How difficult is it to recognize that? If you instead poo-poo their thoughts whenever expressed, you will win nobody’s mind. Fine by me, but then what’s a blog for?

Accuweather Global Warming: 1997-2006 was Warmest in last 1,300 years in the Northern Hemisphere

For paulm: the “Jason” story should be considered carefully.

The idea of a shadowy organization capable of keeping tens of brilliant, famous minds in San Diego for 6 weeks every year, without arising suspicion, doesn’t seem likely.

I also find the suggestion that climate change skeptics have been able to “successfully delay significant political action to deal with greenhouse gas emissions” laughable in the extreme. Just look at the IPCC, and at the Kyoto Protocol (whose child called the “emission trading scheme” has meant billions of dollars in profit for energy companies in the EU, by the way).

Also note that the authors are Oreskes (the one unable to properly count pro-warming scientific papers) and Renouf (going to broadcast a programme on BBC2 the same day of that article’s publication, and thus in need of pumping the whole thing up to say the least).

IHT: The Two Weeks You Missed

Dear Editors of the IHT

It is commendable for William Falk to take upon himself the task of updating the wide world of what has been happening whilst Democrats and Republicans cavorted at their respective national political conventions (“The two weeks you missed”, IHT, Sep 8). However, it would have been even more commendable had Mr Falk checked all his “facts”: otherwise, rather than a news update, his effort will be just another act of disinformation.

In particular:

1- “Hezbollah…has a new base of operations in the Americas: Venezuela” – really? This has been an ongoing accusation for years, with little evidence ever provided. Shouldn’t one be a little bit more skeptical about it then, when the only source of the information are unnamed “Western intelligence officials”? This is a Presidential Election year in the USA, after all, and we all know which candidate stands to benefit if any international crisis explodes (or is concocted)

2- “Some [polar bears] were headed toward the edge of the ice shelf, 400 miles away – far beyond their endurance” – really? All we know is that by chance, a helicopter surveying the Arctic for oil-exploration has spotted nine polar bears swimming. The “400 miles away” detail has been reported not by those on the helicopter, and not even by the WWF that published the original story, but by a journalist at London-based “Daily Mail”, a newspaper that has retracted the story (=deleted from their website) since.

All in all, it looks like Mr Falk himself has been too busy watching Barack Obama, John McCain and assorted “dorky delegates bopping to the Beach Boys and Stevie Wonder”…

My Tube: Tutti schiavi del navigatore

naturalmente gli inglesi dicono “sat-nav” e non “nav-sat”.

la “principessina” perduta con il taxi e’ in realta’ Kitty Spencer, la nipote di Lady Diana, figlia del fratello cioe’ (al massimo “contessina”) e il Telegraph ha raccontato una storia un po’ diversa:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583778/Satnav-takes-Earl’s-daughter-to-wrong-Stamford-Bridge.html

Al Daily Mail (dove Kitty e’ definita Top Totty perche’ ancora da maritare) spiegano la disavventura come un problema di comunicazione fra umani, e non qualcosa specifico che riguarda il Sat Nav. Quando il taxi e’ stato prenotato qualcuno ha scritto che la destinazione era Stamford Bridge come localita’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-555474/Taxi-sat-nav-bungle-sends-Earl-Spencers-daughter-Stamford-Bridge-Yorkshire–instead-Chelseas-football-ground.html

Il problema di fondo e’ che “the computer is an ass”, e’ un asino che fa solo ed esattamente quanto gli viene comunicato. Quindi piu’ che un futuro in cui siamo un po’ piu’ stupidi, sara’ un futuro in cui dovremo essere un po’ piu’ precisi

Polar Defense Project: End in Sight

The more I look at this, the more it reminds me of people waving Tibetan flags and speaking in favor of the Tibetan cause. They have done for decades now, and look what good they have done to Tibet (=zilch).

Whoever does the “raise awareness” bit, they surely feel much better afterwards. Still, Tibet remains in its troubles, just like the the North Pole will. Whatever those troubles truly are.

Raising awareness is not the same as raising money for a charity by swimming the Atlantic or climbing Everest in the buff: because that money can be easily turned into something tangible, whilst the awareness is literally just hot air.

ps I don’t think 81N can be classified as an “achievement”, given the starting point. The only way to do less would have been had the Svalbards been ice-locked in August-September.

Daily Mail: The heartbreaking picture of the polar bears…

(Comment to “The heartbreaking picture of the polar bears“, Daily Mail, Aug 31)

Much of this article by Mr Wigmore is likely to be not actually true, but “embellished reality”. The WWF site in the USA has not published any new news since Aug 21, the day the bears were spotted. I am sure we would have heard and seen a lot from those bears, if anybody were following them or had any news about their whereabouts and wellbeing.

Simply, nobody knows if they are lost at sea, if they plunged into the ocean, if they all lived on a single ice float that then melted, which direction they are going, how far is land or ice, etc etc.

Many people around the world have been needlessy made to worry about these nine bears. This cannot be right. I urge Mr Wigmore to check things as they are, with the WWF in the USA but also from other sources, and correct this article accordingly

ASPO Italia: “L’arte della retorica nel dibattito sul riscaldamento globale: il “punto caldo” della troposfera”

Concordo con il fatto che appoggiare tutta una critica su un unico punto non e’ una scelta retoricamente saggia. Annoiare l’uditorio, poi, e’ un crimine.

D’altra parte tutto questo disprezzo nei confronti degli “scettici” una volta mi dava fastidio. Adesso lo trovo finanche utile, a dimostrare che dietro alle paure climatiche non c’e’ al momento molto di solido.

Riguardo il meccanismo dell’effetto serra, ricordo che e’ universalmente riconosciuto che la sensitivita’ alla concentrazione della sola CO2 in assenza di altri effetti, e’ di circa 1C per ogni raddoppio di concentrazione.

Se si trattasse solo di quello, non staremmo qui a parlarne.

Ma l’atmosfera e’ molto piu’ complicata che un laboratorio: lo stesso IPCC e’ riuscito solo ad arrivare a un ampio range di stime, fra 1.5C e 4.5C, senza granche’ miglioramento negli ultimi sei anni, e il dibattito su quale siano i valori piu’ vicini al vero e’ ancora aperto.

Stefano Montanari: quattrocentotrentacinque

9. 28-05-2008 21:32
	Ma chi ha letto la ricerca? Ho fatto anche io la mia ricerca su PubMed. Le mie conclusioni sono molto semplici:     il giornalista di Repubblica ha confuso il numero di casi in una ricerca francese con il numero di articoli sull\\’argomento  lo stesso giornalista ha citato PubMed a sproposito. La ricerca dell\\’Istituto di Vigilanza Sanitaria francese(InVS) e\\’ stata pubblicata sul loro sito, e non e\\’ visibile al momento su PubMed  Lo studio dell\\’InVS dice esplicitamente che i risultati NON PERMETTONO di stabilire la causalità del collegamento osservato l\\’esposizione alle emissioni di un inceneritore e l\\’incidenza di tumori; e che \\”e\\’ importante sottolineare che visto che lo studio riguarda una situazione passata, i suoi risultati NON POSSONO essere applicati al contesto attuale\\”  In ogni caso, l\\’epidemiologia dice che aumenti del 6% o anche del 20% sono troppo bassi per dimostrare alcunche\\’  Ritornando a PubMed, i lavori li\\’ presenti indicano chiaramente come sia molto aperto il dibattito intorno agli effetti degli inceneritori su tumori, malattie, mortalita’  E\\’ provato che l\\’esposizione alle diossine causi problemi, per esempio un deciso aumento dei casi di sarcoma  Uno studio francese di cinque anni fa riporta un deciso aumento anche dei casi di Linfoma non-Hodgkin, ma solo nella zona piu\\’ vicina a un inceneritore.  Una quantita\\’ di studi effettuati in varie parti del mondo, Italia, nel Regno Unito, a Taiwan, in Portogallo, in Spagna, in Slovacchia, negli Stati Uniti, riportano invece trascurabili o comunque poco chiari effetti sulla salute da parte degli inceneritori, specie quelli piu\\’ moderni      Per quanto mi riguarda, la polemica sugli inceneritori, dal punto di vista scientifico, dovrebbe chiudersi oggi stesso. Chi non mi crede, si rilegga lo studio InVS.

RealClimate: Butterflies, tornadoes and climate modelling

Maurizio Morabito Says:
1 May 2008 at 7:11 PM

There is a simple way to settle the falsifiability issue. Could anybody at RC please post a blog clearly stating what would falsify the climate models? Say (just as a way of example) “if temperatures will be cooler than today’s in 2020″ or “if there is a sustained negative trend over the course of 25 years”. Those statements are simplistic: I am sure you can come up with something more sophisticated.

Alternatively, if such a clear-cut answer has already been the topic of one of your blogs, could you please provide the link. thanks in advance.

=======

7 May 2008 at 7:03 PM

Re #107

I am preparing a relatively long commentary on what I am learning from this blog and its comments. For now let me clarify that I do not think that current climate models are based on incorrect physics.

The black-body radiation equivalence still holds though, as what looked like a relatively minor nuisance (“noise”?) to your average XIX century physicist, was the basis for a whole new understanding of the whole science of physics.

Think of genetics: yesterday’s “junk DNA” is (in part) today’s “gene switches”. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

As for the comments policy, in the past I have seen some thoughts of mine not published, for whatever reason. I am pleasantly surprised that nothing of the sort is happening this time around, and hopefully the situation won’t change.

Leucophaea: Ci Risiamo Con il Global Warming

(commento a “Ci Risiamo Con il Global Warming“): E adesso che anche Nature pone l’interruzione del riscaldamento come possibilita’ realistica, a chi chiederai di zittire chi non la pensa come te?

Climate Skeptic: Are Climate Models Falsifiable?

Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | April 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM

It would be interesting if “Scientist” would come up with ways to falsify the climate models, since as we know the people at RealClimate won’t. The “weather vs. climate” picture confirms my point: as long as there is _any amount_ of “warming”, the climate models will be considered _right_ (in the sense of “not false”).

One can imagine a period of 20 years of cooling dismissed out of hand as “aerosols” or “soot” or whatever else: with the climate models still “right”, no matter what.

On the other hand when, say, James Hansen talks about “tipping points” he is not referring to changes that will be visible only after 10 or more years of statistics: rather, to spectacular modifications of the world as we experience it. Am I mistaken on this point?

So please, if you can, try to be explicit about what observations would make you change your mind.

As I mention in my Moon Hoax blog, the difference between a dogmatic and a honest debater is that the former invariably never ever reveals what evidence would convince them to change their mind.

http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/phil-plaits-moon-hoax-london-speech-report/

Under the Jacaranda Tree: Bart Simpson and Jin Jing’s spin-doctors

omnologos Says:
22 April, 2008 at 10:39 pm

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter any longer. The pictures are out there. There are two assaults, not just one. Ms. Jin’s facial expression is that of a person in distress, or an unexpectedly great actress.

So obscure photographic analysis and talks about the behaviour of foreigners marching towards a demo in Paris, won’t do the trick. You may as well try to stop a tsunami with a teaspoon.

The Economist: The return of Silvio Berlusconi

The Economist has devoted so much ink to Berlusconi during the election campaign (compared, say, to Veltroni), one would be tempted to think the esteemed magazine pretends to hate the guy but it’s actually in love with Silvio…

I firmly believe Veltroni had no intention to win this time around (with a Party still in its infancy, and no definite opinion on any topic, still half-way between the Christian Democrats and the Communists of old). Veltroni’s main (and achieved) aim was to kill off everything on his left.

Berlusconi on the other hand in all likelihood will never again have to run for popularly-elected office: he now has three to four years to gather enough support in Parliament to become President of the Italian Republic, so it would be rather foolish for him to run down the country.

Climate Feedback: Gulf Stream revisited

I am appalled at the poor quality of this blog entry on Climate Feedback. Is this the standard expected from Nature?? Please do check facts a little better, next time.

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/gulf-stream-myths/ http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/gulf-stream-myths-2/

Razionalismo vs. Religione: Rai: condannata per puntata di AnnoZero sulla copertura dei preti pedofili

Marzo 17, 2008 alle 8:32 pm

La Pagina: Elezioni 2008: etica e politica

17, Marzo, 2008 a 12:21 pm E’ appunto perche’ a parlare sono i fatti e non le chiacchiere che si puo’ dire che il Governo Prodi sia stato il piu’ clericale della storia della Repubblica. Non una sola iniziativa e’ arrivata a termine, se i vescovi hanno detto di no.

Infatti chi e’ il secondo partito clericale d’Italia adesso, se non il PD (dopo l’UDC)? E in quale partito e’ permesso di pensare liberamente sull’etica, se non nel PDL?

Oca Sapiens: Messina, V puntata

BBC News: Can’t Anybody Understand Science?

(message sent to the BBC)

The unsigned article on congestion charge and health is highly misleading to say the least. As one of the report’s authors, Cathryn Tonne, told internet publication “spiked online”, “the average increase in life expectancy suggested by the report is 14 hours per person – over their entire lifespan!”.

One worries about the level of scientific understanding when 14 hours are reported as 1,888 years…

IHT: Opining without Reading

Dear Editors

Wouldn’t it be wiser for columnists to read first about what they want to write, rather than rely purely on soundbites and media-generated hearsay?

Mona Eltahawy, in “Delusions in Canterbury” (IHT, Feb 15) says about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ideas on Shari’a law that “words are especially cheap“, and “he probably thinks his ‘tolerance’ for Shariah is progressive“. She even wonders “whose version of Shariah he meant“.

There is no need for wondering or probability. Archbishop Williams originally gave a thoughtful lecture on the topic, as part of a series, on February 7. The lecture is available online and consists of 8 densely-written pages, where many if not all of the objections have already been answered.

Perhaps it was the length, combined with the complexity of the topic: or perhaps it was the objective difficulty in translating a long and reasoned argument into a few journalistic words. In any case, anybody reading the original will be able to understand how much the Archbishop’s thoughts have been distorted in hundreds and hundreds of reports.

Shari’a law, Muslim integration in Europe, the status of women and gays are very serious topics. I just wish Ms Eltahawy and everybody seriously considering them will make a point of finding the time to explore proposals such as Archbishop Williams’ fully and on the original sources, instead of by whatever appears on TV or newspapers.

Accuweather Global Warming: Cause of Massive Ice Shelf Collapse Questioned

BrooklineTom

I’d certainly do without the Nazis but…why shouldn’t I be able to answer oranges with oranges, so to speak??

There is an overwhelming consensus that the expression “Global warming denier” has been deliberately coined to equate AGW heretics to people denying the Holocaust.

And “Denier” is often repeated by people fully aware of the horrible connotations around it.

Check what happened on CBS around a year ago. Or the stuff this article, some mainstream media pieces making more or less the same point.

In any case, Goebbels’ words have been used in all sort of propaganda tricks, not just to build the Holocaust.

Hey, am I accusing you of participating in the killing hundreds of millions of people or what?

(and that’s an argumentum ad absurdum, if you don’t get it)

Perdukistan: Englisharia

mauriziomorabito said…

Solo per dire che il problema non e’ (stato) l’Arcivescovo di Canterbury, ma (a) i giornalisti che, incapaci di leggere le otto pagine fitte fitte di parole scritte da Williams, ne hanno distorto il pensiero completamente in un “soundbite” insensato. E (b) tutti quei politici, prelati e gente di esperienza varia che hanno immediatamente espresso la loro opinione: ma invece di leggere il testo originale, si sono basati sul “soundbite”.

A controprova: a parte il fatto che la polemica si e’ sgonfiata dopo qualche giorno (si vede, il tempo necessario a leggere otto pagine di testo), lo stesso Cardinale O’Connor sembra aver cambiato opinione da un giorno all’altro (presumibilmente, dopo aver finalmente letto il testo).

La morale e’ sempre quella: c’e’ ‘sto benedetto internet, andatevi a leggere l’originale invece che dare credito al giornalista / commentatore/ parlatore di turno

7:20 PM

Classically Liberal: Archbishop says some Sharia law in England should be passed

The fact that the Archbishop’s words were condemned from each and every side should have alerted to the other fact, that he may have actually said something else, and something thoughtful.

http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/reactions-to-archbishop-williams-sharia-remarks-reveal-depth-of-islamophobia/

The “problem” is that the Archbishop explained his ideas in 8 pages full of words: and those were simply too much for journalists to comprehend. So they went for a completely misleading soundbite, and all sorts of people and politicians jumped in commenting: but they were commenting the soundbite, not the Archbishop’s thoughts.

As further evidence for this, with each passing day the brouhaha is steadily dying down: one wonders how many simply needed such a period of time, to read and digest the original speech.

Complex System of Pipes: Just Like Who?

 4 omnologos February 14, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Thank you for posting this. When I read the original news I had a feeling there was something wrong…

Let’s celebrate the fact that the police are improving their methods. Having killed Jean-Charles de Menezes, they “only” shot Mohammed Abdulkahar in the Forrest Gate fiasco.

This time around they “simply” “accompanied” people to the nearest Police Station (too bad for those broken doors). Phew!

And what about Roma communities “driving down house prices? Wasn’t that supposed to be a welcome thing, in all the stories about people getting priced out of the market? 8-P

 5 omnologos February 14, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Dave

Look at Google News…and despair…

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&q=slough+roma&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d

“This is London”, “UK Express” and even Channel 4 have not changed their reporting a bit. Their readers will still be convinced the police raids were a good thing.

The BBC News web site itself, says nothing of the latest developments.

Accuweather Global Warming: Cause of Massive Ice Shelf Collapse Questioned

By the way…I liked (part of) Aaron’s comment so much, I blogged about it:

Me “Denier”? You “Goebbelite”!”

And I wouldn’t mind being called a heretic

Reason Magazine: Science Writer’s Motto: We Don’t Ask Questions. That Is Not Our Role.

I recommend reading the Skeptic Society’s essay:

“Journalist-Bites-Reality!
How broadcast journalism is flawed
in such a fundamental way that its utility as a tool for informing viewers is almost nil..”.

It explains many, many things…

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/skeptics-society-how-broadcast-journalism-is-flawed/

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-02-13.html#feature

Complex System of Pipes: Hey Joe – Asian Babes, Honour Killings and Liberal Racism

Thank you Dave for the link.

I have published in the past my worries about the brewing of anti-Muslim sentiments

As for media bias, there is a very good essay from the Skeptics society I have just blogged about. It shows all that’s wrong with journalism, and not just on The Independent.

BBC Have Your Say: Should UK adopt aspects of Sharia Law?

Way too many people are ready to comment without bothering to read the original source. Dr Williams’ lecture is intelligent, thoughtful, humble, and single-handedly describes the basis for solving the Islamic Question in Western societies. Rarely have I seen a document more profoundly Christian, in the best possible sense of the word. The number and virulence of the ill-informed attacks against Dr Williams is a clear indication of how much Islamophobia has now become “mainstream”.